This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Your editorial brings to mind an underlying issue affecting a variety of seniors’ benefits, as well as drug costs, and that is “bracket creep.” When I filed for 2014 last year, I missed out on the $500 allowance seniors get from the province toward their realty taxes, because I exceeded the earnings limit by some $200.

They could have given me the $500 less the amount by which I exceeded the limit, but no, they grabbed it all. This is the sneaky means by which governments disallow our entitlements as inflation moves our incomes up above the fixed levels prescribed in the regulations.

Article Continued Below

“Bracket creep” is a nasty, devious way of balancing the budget on the backs of us seniors, and I think it is disgusting. It affects many things beside drug costs, and requires legislation to automatically move all prescribed income levels upwards every year, according to the previous year’s rate of inflation.

Jeff Goodall, Oshawa

Premier Kathleen Wynne is reconsidering her proposal to increase the amount from $100 to $170 that seniors would have to pay before being able to qualify for “free drugs.” She also wants to increase the prescription costs from $ 6.11 to $7.11.

Does anyone realize that seniors received the grand total of 57 cents — yes, 57 cents — per month in their last pension increase in January, 2016. Or that over the past 12 months their total increase per month has been $6.78.

And Ms Wynne thinks that raising drug costs for seniors in such a whopping amount is acceptable. Shame on her and on all politicians who treat seniors in such a way.

Glenys Ward, Cobourg

Once again, the public is astounded at the level of incompetence of the Ontario Liberal government. How could any individual or government with any intelligence and compassion use a yearly income of $19,300 for a senior citizen as the cutoff for the increase in the annual drug deductible?

Just imagine living in Ontario, elderly, with medical needs and finding out that this deductible has suddenly risen by 70 per cent. I would think that this income level itself would be difficult to live on and now to have your government penalize you unnecessarily.

Instead of penalizing these individuals, why not modify the benefits that many well-off seniors enjoy. And yes, I am one of them and would gladly pay more.

Lynda Hurley, Toronto

Here we are again facing another tax. I am in disbelief how everything has gone up in price, putting low-income earners, as well as young families like mine, in severe financial stress. It is quite easy for Wynne to put a tax on something that she and other personnel in high-level government positions won’t pay for. The gas tax will be put under “transportation expenses,” which again, we will pay for. While it is true that students in low-income families will get a break on college tuition, they won’t be able to afford to get there.

Brad Globe, Whitby

Budget kicks off Wynne's re-election bid, Opinion Feb. 28

Bob Hepburn’s rosy analysis of the Liberal budget is a tad misguided. While he may believe it was a “politically astute” move by the Liberals in preparation for the 2018 election, he seems to forget that the recent public asset sale of Ontario Hydro, the failure to dismantle the Beer Store monopoly, increased gas taxes and ever-increasing deficits will be the issues for the next election.

The Conservatives won’t have to do much to oust the Liberals from office, Kathleen Wynne and her team will do it all by themselves.

Steve Craine, Toronto

Despite Bob Hepburn’s cheerleading for the Wynne government, the hard fact remains that successive Liberal governments since 2003 have been terrible stewards of our tax dollars. The waste and accompanying self-serving “spin” are an insult to our collective intelligence.

Their new initiatives on pension reform and cap-and-trade climate change fees represent more opportunities for the Liberals to roll up billions of our dollars and throw them down a sewer. Much as I dread the possibility of a Patrick Brown government, we may have to go there to stop the appalling and on-going waste of our money by the current regime.

John Bruce, Niagara Falls

Premier Kathleen Wynne is not a progressive. Privatizing parts of Hydro, retaining the lobby money from foreign brewers, and now asking car drivers and homeowners to pay carbon levies and exempting corporate producers of carbon put her in league with the 1 per cent. It is estimated that the oil and gas industry gets yearly worldwide subsidies of nearly one trillion dollars. All producers of carbon in Ontario need to start paying for their pollution, not just some Ontarians.

Frank Hayley, Oakville

Few Star readers will disagree with the editors taking Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa to task for his parsimonious attitude toward children in need. It seems that hard-working single moms, many in dead-end-jobs, will just have to plug on and, sadly, continue to fall behind in their effort to provide a healthy home environment for their children.

As for young offenders in custody, unable to procure bail, save the crocodile tears. Those social misfits pose a threat to their neighbourhoods. Besides, in detention they are served nutritional meals, and have to go to bed at a reasonable hour. And teens need their sleep. For those with any ambition, there are high school credits to acquire. And months in custody should provide those young people with ample time to consider their future.

More courtrooms would certainly make the province’s legal quagmire more efficient, but the last thing Ontarians need is a revolving door pushing youths, who too often lack adult supervision, back into their old stomping grounds.

So let’s focus on children. That’s the only way to fix the well-beaten path from childhood to petty crime that seems so prevalent in families just struggling to survive, the ones who can’t afford bail for older siblings.

Garry Burke, Oro-Medonte

The solution always seems to be easiest by augmenting taxes. Drugs will now cost more for “rich” seniors who live on $19,000 per year. Canada has probably the second highest cost for prescription drugs in the world and it has been suggested and recommended for years that it can easily be changed by adopting the payment prices other nations use. The government, however, is more keen on giving the money to the drug companies.

The Star has brought this issue up at least once recently. When something is obvious but not acceptable, there is another reason usually. Cui bono (who benefits)?

Is total household income the only criteria for free tuition? What about academic achievement? A student maybe very clever but if he doesn’t apply his intelligence to work, he is not productive. It would be waste of money to invest in a person who would not be contributing to the welfare of society. Furthermore an able-bodied 18-year-old should be able to supplement his tuition costs by taking on part time jobs.

Just because gas is cheap currently, Premier Wynne thinks it’s justifiable to add on a tax. Do consumers ever get a break? Rethink and rewrite your budget, please.

Paula J. Ho, Toronto

It is quite appropriate and fair that drug costs for low income seniors should be reduced or eliminated. But it was cruel to balance the deficit on the shoulders of fixed pension middle-income seniors. I am sure there are many other ways to cover the shortage.

As per the annual Sunshine List, there are thousands of provincial employees making over $100,000 a year. I am certain a 5 or 10 per cent cut in salary (until the province recovers) would have been a much fairer adjustment of the deficit.

Art Hagopian, Aurora

The plan to make college and university tuition free for students from families making $50,000 a year or less will encourage more young Ontario teenagers to go to post-secondary school for more education because it will take away their fear of ending up with a student debt before they even start their life. Many students do not go to post-secondary school, simply because they cannot afford it and this is not fair. This plan should reassure more students from lower income families that higher education is actually affordable for them.

I hope this commitment to Ontario students will carry on into the development of a free education for students from low-income families. This will help greater numbers of students pursue the career-specific programs at colleges that they love.

As a senior high school student, I am struggling to be able to attend college next year since my family is low-income. I plan to take OSAP but like many other classmates, I do not want to be in debt as soon as I am starting my life.

Me and thousands of other students around Ontario will greatly appreciate and benefit from this.

Christina Augurusa, Erin

So Premier Wynne considers any senior who makes over $19,300 a year to be “higher income.” That’s rich coming from a politician who makes $208,974 a year, not to mention the other 111,400 public servants who make over $100,000 annually.

Derek Boles, Toronto

The proposed Ontario Student Grant program, which provides free post-secondary tuition to Ontario adolescents with financial need, may be helpful to select students but still does not address a main fiscal issue: exorbitant living expenses that continue to escalate. While the cost of tuition challenges access to higher education, estimated living expenses — which can be as much as the cost of tuition — poses another deterrent to students from low-income families. Providing grants to cover additional living costs may not be financially viable, but it is an issue to consider if living costs continue to loom.

Elena Kum, grade 12, Markville Secondary School

I was appalled to see “People saving for retirement” under “Winners” in this new budget. With the national debt passing a trillion dollars, I don’t expect to see a dime of that CPP by the time I become eligible. The ORPP is the same story — another bite out of my meagre paycheck by a government desperate for revenue, eating away at my own struggle to save. I don’t feel like a winner.

Nathan Montague, Mississauga

I am 75 and having to continue working part-time to augment my modest pension income is not something that I particularly enjoy doing. To learn that much of my worked-for income is consumed by taxes flowing to 907,000 welfare-type cases in the province of Ontario is infuriating. Not sure I can tolerate this much longer.

Robert Woodcock, North York

How does the public treasury benefit from “cap and trade” where large polluters are given carbon credits for free which they are then able to rent or sell? Why not a tax on pollution to enrich the public treasury and allow the elimination of other taxes? There is no cost in the fight against climate change if, for example, we can eliminate the HST and replace it with a carbon tax.

And what does it say about a government that, in the pretense of protecting the environment, chooses instead the system that enriches large corporate polluters while raising the cost of living of everyone else?

Hugh Allin, Newcastle

Carbon pricing is here to stay, Ontario. Like the Blue Box, which shook us up when it was first introduced in the 1980s, we will adapt and it will become a natural part of our lives and culture.

The big question is how will the money be invested back into a better future? This is new territory: using pollution as a major revenue stream for conservation. So let’s test out some of the possibilities to see what gets the best results.

How about: free transit, new bike lanes, incentives for solar, conservation and backup power, community and backyard gardens, and community parks. Measure results not just in carbon savings, but in our quality of life. Focus on making a low-carbon lifestyle easy, affordable, and desirable.

Chris Winter, Canada Conserves, Toronto

With Ontarians already paying the highest hydro costs in North America, this is not a good news budget for many of us. The hefty 16 cents a gallon gasoline tax means much higher costs to drive to work and with the tax on natural gas to heat their homes. Food and other consumer goods will cost much more as the higher cost of delivery is passed on.

Even more troubling is Ontarians will now be subsidizing free university or college tuition for anyone from a family making under $50,000. This scheme seems taken from the Bernie Sanders playbook.

With a $300 billion debt and huge deficit, the Ontario Liberals government should be showing fiscal restraint, not spending more we simply cannot afford. The Wynne Liberals continue its addiction to spending, as it takes more and more from our pockets.

Larry Comeau, Ottawa

Thank you, Charles Sousa, you have swept us seniors under the rug again with your do-nothing-for-seniors other than to raise our our OHIP deductable to $170 raise the only two vices I have — smoking and beer and wine. You do not realize that our income is fixed all year around with our pensions and whatever little raises we get is all gone as soon as we get them.

Why did you not increase taxes for the majority of people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars and with all the perks that they get.

I also get the feeling that the money you will be collecting on the carbon taxes next year will not end up where it should and be spent on some of your pet projects.

Maybe this is the time to cut off my smoking and drink less beer so that at least I will not be contributing any more tax money to your spending sprees, which is a trademark of the Liberals.

This spending can not continue to provide daycare for working mothers, all day Kindergarten, and now free university tuition for students.

I must say that this is the worst budget that any government has imposed on us and I can only hope and wait for the next election, it can not come soon enough.

William Webb, Lindsay

As an immigrant from Pakistan who studies at McMaster University, words cannot describe my gratitude to the Ontario government’s pledge of making education more affordable to all families. Coming from a country where education is viewed as a commodity and is reserved for the financially superior, I believe that these new legislations will usher a new era of prosperity and advancement for Ontario, and sets the benchmark for all provinces.

Coming from a low-income family, I understand and experience the struggle of financial constraints adversely impacting education. The pledge of free tuition for low-income families will remove the shackles of burden and worry for many Ontarians, and will have collateral benefits in all spheres of society.

These new measures, along with the federal government’s attitude of promoting diversity in terms of culture, ethnicity and religion, reflect the Canadian dream of hope and prosperity, a vision that attracted many refugees and immigrants.

As an Ahmadi Muslim, I am proud to call Ontario my home, and have pledged my complete loyalty to this country. I pray that may God keep our land, glorious and free, for many years to come!

Khizar Karim, Alliston

Combating climate change is certainly laudable, and any government’s efforts to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions deserves recognition. That being said, the simplest way of reducing emissions ultimately comes down to making fossil fuels too expensive for the average consumer to use. Then in that context with the increase in taxes on gasoline and natural gas, this budget is certainly a step in that direction.

Unfortunately, this government’s insatiable need for cash fueled by its apparent refusal to at least try to live within its means casts a somewhat jaded shadow over any green initiative they put forward that involves relieving consumers of some of their money.

While the Liberal government insists that, by law, any revenue generated by these new taxes must go toward reduction of carbon emissions. We have in the past seen all too often their ability to expend huge sums of taxpayer money with little or no return in terms of betterment of life for the people of this province.

Their credibility in managing anything to do with fiscal matters is almost non-existent. Therefore I have no doubts that some of this new money will quietly end up being “re-purposed” towards other government programs or even deficit reduction.

Greenhouse emissions may very well fall in this province, but this governments claim that this budgets increased taxation is all about the environment has a somewhat hollow ring to it.

Dennis Shaughnessy, Peterborough

Yes we do need to deal with climate change, Ms Wynne, but there is a better way. Now is not a good time to tell Ontarians that energy costs are going up again. A carbon tax with monies going into government coffers will further erode your support.

But there is a simple and cost effective way to battle climate change. Carbon fee and dividend is the solution. Endorsed by world renowned economists in Canada and the U.S., a carbon fee and dividend would have the same impact in lower emissions without costing Ontarians more.

Yes put a price on carbon; however, give this money back to the good people of Ontario in a dividend cheque. It is a win/win solution. We increase the cost of carbon fuels but that money is distributed equally back to the us.

It works in B.C. and although they distribute the money back by way of income tax reductions it works. Emissions in B.C. have dropped by more than 17 per cent. And the people of B.C. approve of the fee. People do want action on climate change and now is the time to do it but a fee and dividend is a much fairer way.

Sonia Kurmey, Etobicoke

I was angered when I saw Kathleen Wynne wants to add another tax to gasoline and to our home heating bills to punish us for creating carbon in the air. Seriously? Our home heating?

What alternatives do we have? None that I can think of except installing geo-thermal heating systems or using photovoltaics, which it would make more sense if tax breaks were given on this sort of sustainable energy systems.

Her so-called environmental strategy is to make us pay and then we can pollute (trade) all we want as long as we hand over the money. This is the most foolish environmental initiative I’ve ever heard of.

Better, she should give tax breaks to industries who make environmentally sustainable vehicles and new homes. Her plan will only hurt those taxpayers already struggling to make ends meet while doing absolutely nothing to help the environment.

Plus, I don’t trust her in the least to use that money for its intended purpose. Everyone should be protesting this insane plan of hers.

Jane White, Scarborough

When are they going to start giving the full total of the gas price hikes for both gas company and government taxes in gallons instead of litres? In the news there was one person who said 4.3 cents tax isn’t that much but that is per litre. That works out to 18.275 cents per gallon or, for an average car with a 15 gallon tank, about $2.75 a tank full each time. Same goes for gas hikes at the pump from big oil.

M. Bridges, Scarborough

Climate change is real. Most of us acknowledge that, and our federal government, along with provincial premiers and others, recently attended the Paris climate conference. And we all applauded, and agreed that something must be done. Yet when our Premier introduces a carbon tax of a whole 4.3 cents, the world goes mad.

We are perfectly willing to fund free post-secondary education, and the seniors want more and more given to them to offset prescription drugs, but when it comes to saving the planet, somebody else better pay, because we aren’t going to.

Want to bet?

Sylvia Ray, Burlington

I fail to see how, by paying yet more tax on gas and natural gas, I will be fighting climate change and forcing big polluters to clean up their act. It’s nuts.

When did I have the chance to vote directly on this cap and trade issue? It’s just more tax on the little guy plain and simple, while the big polluters just carry on.

Don Dorward, Pickering

I was appalled to learn that many seniors will have to pay more for prescription drugs – an increase of 70 per cent for their annual fee, as well as a significant increase in the co-pay amount — by several dollars for each prescription filled.

This increase has been neatly deflected by focusing on the drug program for low-income seniors that is being rolled out. Indeed, there has been very little conversation around the increases that a large majority of seniors will have to pay for their prescription medications. Now, I have no issue with any seniors having access to the medicines that will keep them healthy. My issue is with a government that has decided that, unless they are living below the poverty line, seniors are now also considered fair game as a revenue source.

So, according to the government, seniors who fall under the middle- and high-income categories should be charged more for the medications that are essential to their continued health and quality of life?

Seniors, who have worked for over 50 years in this country, carefully saving their pennies, raising their families, contributing to the growth of our cities and province – these people should be charged more for the medications that will allow them to live their lives and end their days in relative good health and with a measure of dignity?

Seniors, many of whom fought for our country, for the rights that we all enjoy, for the freedom and democracy that we are now extending to those in need beyond our borders – these people should bear more of a burden to maintain their health, and to hope to enjoy their twilight years?

Seniors – those who showed restraint in spending over a lifetime, forethought in saving for retirement, thriftiness and resourcefulness in maintaining what they had and not buying outside their means – these people will now be punished for their prudence?

Health Minister Charles Sousa said the province’s drug benefits program has to be sustainable. “We are supporting seniors right across the board to access more medicine,” Sousa told reporters. “We are the most generous in Canada for that and it hasn’t changed in 20 years.”

Well, Mr. Sousa, I contend that it should not change – instead of looking to a sector of society that has contributed greatly throughout their lives, look elsewhere to sustain this program. Do not look to seniors, regardless of their level of income, for those incomes are now carefully monitored, fixed incomes – incomes that do not have the promise of growing as careers blossom – remember, these are people whose careers are behind them, not ahead. Do not fault those of us seniors who were responsible enough to save for our future, so that we now have the dubious fortune of being considered middle-class – our personal responsibility does not make us fair game for your government’s dollar-seeking eyes.

Regardless of which class of income we fall under, please remember this very crucial point – that our income is NOT a renewable resource. Rather, like the natural resources that are being depleted daily on our planet, seniors’ incomes are also being depleted every day, victim to the ever-rising costs of daily life.

In keeping with how we have lived our lives, we seniors generally do not moan about our difficulties in making ends meet, or about how we must budget and cut corners to stretch our limited dollars as far as we can. Many of us continue to work, far past the age that we had hoped to retire, not because we are greedy for money or bored being at home, but because without the extra income we would not be able to afford the essentials of life – food, housing, medicines. But, as made clear in this budget, the government has closed its eyes to our fragile, precarious situation. Being “middle-class” does not guarantee stability – especially when our limited funds are targeted to keep programs “sustainable”.

I know seniors who are drowning in the expenses of daily life - whom the government would term “middle-class”. I know a woman who cannot buy prescription eye glasses - she does not have the money for them - so she can no longer read small print - like the small print on the prescription bottles that she may also soon no longer be able to afford. This is what will happen when the cost of prescription medications goes up - if seniors cannot afford them, they simply won’t buy them. Even though they need them.

And let’s not fool ourselves that the “savings” that will arise from this change in the drug program won’t be countered by greater expenses in other areas of health care spending. When seniors do not - because they cannot - take the necessary medicines for their health conditions, they will increasingly find themselves in hospital emergency rooms, and at doctor’s offices, requiring more care than would have originally been required, for the degenerated state of their health, brought on by their untreated conditions.

A government that closes its eyes to the very real plight of one of its largest, and still growing, segments of society is short-sighted, at best (and callous, at worst). The sacrifices and contributions of a lifetime appear to count for very little in the eyes of this government. I ask the Liberal government to please do what is right and just – continue to support seniors’ health and well-being, do not raise fees for essential services for seniors, and help us live our lives in dignity and peace.

Caterina Sciarretta, Rexdale

As a family physician, I am very pleased that our provincial government will now be providing the shingles vaccine free of charge to our patients. I am, however, very disappointed that they have limited the funding to those aged 65 to 70.

Contrary to their press release, the incidence of shingles is not at a maximum between the ages of 65 and 70. In fact, it continues to rise over one’s lifetime to the point where a person over 80 has a lifetime risk of 1 in 2 of developing the condition. All of our seniors deserve the protection this vaccine affords. It is unfair to limit the funding to those of a certain age.

Most of my patients who can afford the vaccine have already received it but there are a substantial number of patients over the age of 70 that could not afford the vaccine but would certainly benefit from the receiving it as well. The limiting of funding to this age group is in direct contradiction to the recommendations of Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization which recommends the vaccine for ALL individuals without contraindications over the age of 60. I can only assume Ontario’s policy is based solely on budgetary constraints.

Shingles can be a horrific illness and can leave you with severe pain for the rest of your life. This is called post-herpetic neuralgia. It is crucial to get early treatment for shingles in order to reduce the likelihood of developing this condition. I tell my patients to see a physician within 12 hours of developing any painful red rash on the body (I show them googled pictures in case they have never seen it). The onset of pain is usually up to one day before the rash.

I highly recommend the shingles vaccine for all of my patients at the age of 60. The vaccine reduces the chance of getting shingles by 50 per cent and the chance of getting severe symptoms by 70 per cent. I always stress that even if one has received the vaccine, one always needs to be on the lookout for shingles and must seek out medical care as soon as possible after noticing the rash. If it looks like shingles, you will be given antiviral medication which helps to limit its severity.

Dr. Michael Wilton, Toronto

The following sentence from the Star’s editorial explains everything about the primary motivation of the Wynne Liberals: “It’s easy to skimp on benefits to children who can’t vote, seldom raise their voices and don’t have much bargaining power.” Wynne and her government have demonstrated repeatedly that while compassion and ethics are good to talk about, what really counts is winning and retaining power.

For example, at election time the Liberals are strongly supported by public sector unions. There is at least the perception of a quid pro quo in that public sector unions have enjoyed wage increases three times the rate of inflation since 2005. This is hard to justify particularly during the Great Recession but clearly helped the Liberals retain power. Unfortunately it has been a very significant factor in the doubling of debt over the same period of time and is a big reason why there is no money left for those who need it most.

Another example is the commitment to balance the budget in time for the next election. Wynne knows that to fall short of this commitment would be suicide when coupled with the Liberals’ track record of financial mismanagement and incompetence. Consequently she is selling most of Hydro One because this is an easy way to balance the budget if only for one year prior to the election.

The evidence clearly shows this is not in the public interest and will decrease revenue in the medium term, but it is yet more proof that the Ontario Liberals only care about doing the right thing if it is consistent with the more important objective of retaining power. Consequently spending money on the most needy among us didn’t make the cut despite Wynne’s promise that social justice would be her top priority when she was elected Premier.

All politicians should remember that promises are cheap but actions are what count. There is a word for those who preach one thing and then do another, particularly at the expense of those who need our support most, and we will surely remember this at election time.

Jonathan Household, Niagara on the Lake

The new Ontario budget fails to spell out how much money will be set aside for doctor compensation, but it hopes for a “predictable” budget. This will cause unintended consequences for patient access to medical care.

Health Minister Dr. Eric Hoskins has imposed a hard cap on total physician expenditures. This is regardless of population growth (such as an influx of refugees and migrants), an aging, sicker group of patients, newer technologies, and future possible pandemics. He has also slashed hundreds of specific fees by 20-50%.

According to the February 16 issue of the Medical Post, the Ontario compensation for family physicians was ranked #9 out of 9 provinces (PEI was excluded), for internists #7, and for general surgeons #7.

Ontario physicians are not the best paid in Canada, and it is false for Dr. Hoskins to reassure the public that medical care will not change in the near future

Many younger physicians – thousands of dollars in debt from 10-15 years of training – may simply leave the province, and even the country. Older MDs may retire prematurely, certain clinics may close, and Ontario patients will experience a rapid decline in access to care.

If Dr. Hoskins still refuses to resolve this issue by binding arbitration, then Federal Health Minister Dr. Jane Philpott should pledge to amend the Canada Health Act so as to mandate binding arbitration. This was originally proposed in 2013 by the Canadian Medical Association.

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com